Future of Full Thrust WAS Re: [FT] Even more NAC ships

Loopholes in the rules don't even figure into it in the States

There are 2 big problems in the States:

1) Game is not in stores and many people are scared about ordering from
overseas 2) Perception that you have to buy an outdated rulebook AND a
supplement (Fleet Book) in order to play the game

The second is the most ironic. It's my belief that the Fleet Book pleased
existing players (a good reason for the product to exist) while becoming a
barrier to entry for new players.

The first is probably the bigger problem, though.

One of our more fervent players also hates the six arcs introduced in the FBs,
but you can't please everyone.

Some possible solutions to the problem: 1) Partner with Brookhurst Hobbies to
get the models into the States.
2) Release Full Thrust Lite -- a free product that describes the
cinematic movement system. This and Fleet Book 1 or 2 gives you enough of the
rules to play. 3) Retire Full Thrust and offer it like More Thrust. Sell Fleet
Book
4) Retire Full Thrust and complete and publish FT3. :-)
5) Pictures of models available (also an issue with Eureka - do YOU know
what a "British Officer in Gorilla suit looks like? I think I want one, but
who can tell).

It used to be simplicity itself to get new players into Full Thrust. The rules
were simple, cheap and the models were easily available.

Past:  "That was fun -- the rules are only $15?  And look at this rack
of ships. Wow, these are cool. I'll take one of these and one of these"

Now: "That was fun -- I have to order from England?  Do they have the
ships here at least?  No, huh?  But I could order from a website -- no
pictures, huh? Ooh, look at these GW figures over here."

I don't even try to bring any new people in anymore. It's like fighting tofu.

The problem for us in the States is that Jon's business is doing perfectly
fine meeting its own goals and supporting him. We want him to
be more, 'cause we like the game.  But he doesn't have any incentive --
it's just more work for him, I think. (Not to put words in your mouth,
Jon -- please correct me if I'm wrong)

Nick

[quoted original message omitted]